VIJAY SINGHANIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("crpc") challenges an order dated 7th April, 1998 passed by the learned metropolitan Magistrate ("mm"), Delhi in FIR No. 131 of 1995 holding that there was a prima facie case made out against the petitioner under Sections 337 and 304a IPC. This petition also challenges an order dated 26th November, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ("asj"), dismissing Crl. Revision No. 41 of 1998 affirming the order passed by the learned MM.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this petition are that on 20th june, 1995 at around 11. 15 am a building at 4883-84, Kucha Ustad Dag, Chandni chowk, Delhi collapsed resulting the death of three persons and injuring several persons. Pursuant to the collapse, enquiries were ordered independently by the delhi Administration and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. An FIR No. 131 of 1995 was registered under Sections 288/337/304-A/427/34 IPC at Police Station town Hall. On the conclusion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against 3 persons namely the petitioner Vijay Singhania who was described as the owner of the building, Pravin Sharma was described as contractor and M. G. Agarwal an associate of the Pravin Kumar in the construction of the building. The learned mm discharged Pravin Kumar and M. G. Agarwal but framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 304a/337 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner as well as the State filed criminal revision petitions. While the revision petition of State was allowed, the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned ASJ.

(3.) MR. I. U. Khan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the enquiries made by the MCD as well as by the Delhi administration revealed that the petitioner was not in any way responsible for the collapse of the building resulting into casualties and injuries to the persons working there. Some repair and renovation work was going on for the purposes of which some material was lying on the top floor. Heavy rains resulted in the collapse of the roof. It is submitted that the building consisted of the ground floor, first floor and barsati. The petitioner occupied the ground floor in the year 1993 paying Rs. 107/- per month. The first floor and barsati were in the possession of Indo European Machinery Co. Pvt. Ltd. ("iemcpl" ). The repair and renovation activity which was going on in the premises at the relevant time was in the control and supervision of two persons namely M. G. Agarwal and Pravin Kumar, the contractor. Those two persons had arranged for the material to be kept on the site and it was on their direction that it was placed on top of the building. The petitioner was not at the site at the time of the incident. Reliance is placed upon a large number of decisions including Joseph v. State of Kerala 1990 Crl LJ 56, B. P. Ram v. State of Madhya pradesh 1991 Crl LJ 473, Bishan Swaroop Sharma v. State (N. C. T. of Delhi) 2005 [1] JCC 452, Kurban Hussein Mohammedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra 1965 (2) Crl LJ 550, Ambalal D. Bhatt v. The State of Gujarat AIR 1972 SC 1150, baijnath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 1485 and State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493. Considerable emphasis has also been placed on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana 1994 (1) RCR 251 which was a case of a building collapse.